- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 19:34:48 +0000
- To: public-script-coord@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=15986 --- Comment #4 from Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> 2012-02-14 19:34:47 UTC --- > This is currently the case per spec, right? I believe so, yes. > What's an example of a place where we need overloading at all? Good question. Overloading predates union types... > The second test-case from comment #0 indicates that Gecko doesn't follow the > spec, doesn't it? Well, since the spec postdates the relevant Gecko code, it couldn't exactly "follow" it. ;) We're working on WebIDL-compliant binding code right now, though. And again, I think that for the one-overload case it's not clear that running overload resolution as the spec does makes sense. -- Configure bugmail: https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.
Received on Tuesday, 14 February 2012 19:34:49 UTC